Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul on his memoir ‘Without Fear or Favour ‘and the executive’s growing influence over the collegium system

The article touches upon the fundamental principle of the Separation of Powers, a basic structure of the Constitution. The Collegium System, evolved through the Three Judges Cases (1981, 1993, 1998), is intended to ensure judicial primacy in appointments to safeguard independence. However, Justice Kaul's memoir highlights concerns about the executive's 'growing influence'. In recent years, friction between the executive and judiciary has centered around the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP), which guides appointments, and the executive's delay in clearing recommended names. UPSC aspirants must analyze the tension between the need for executive accountability in appointments (which the struck-down National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) sought) and the necessity of preventing executive overreach to protect the judiciary's ability to act 'without fear or favour'.

From a governance perspective, the effectiveness of the justice delivery system relies heavily on a robust and independent judiciary. The 'quiet power struggles' mentioned in the article point to the need for greater institutional transparency within the Supreme Court. The Collegium System is often criticized for its opacity, being termed an extra-constitutional mechanism that lacks public accountability. Good governance requires that the process of selecting the highest judicial officers be transparent and based on objective criteria. Justice Kaul's reflection on the 'need for systemic reforms' is crucial; reforms must address not just the appointment process, but also case management, judicial accountability, and the handling of internal conflicts to maintain public trust in the institution.

The memoir's title, 'Without Fear or Favour', relates directly to the judicial oath taken under the Third Schedule of the Constitution. For a judge, Integrity and Impartiality are paramount. The 'dilemmas confronting judges when called upon to reconcile competing interests' highlight the ethical challenges inherent in judicial decision-making. Judges are often faced with conflicts between individual rights and state security, or between different fundamental rights. Ethical jurisprudence demands that decisions are based purely on constitutional morality and legal principles, free from executive pressure or personal bias. This underscores the importance of institutional design—such as secure tenure and a fair appointment process—in protecting the moral courage required for an independent judiciary.